) 


An  Address 


Jlrnf.  <£?is.  £.  for  r ,  §.  IL 

Professor  of  Church  History  in  the 
Newton  Theological  Institution 


Before  the 


Unatrnt  Sap twt  fHintslrra’  (Sflitferrnre 

April  22,  1907 


The  Compliments  of 

HENRY  IV.  PEABODY 

Salem,  Mass . 


Reprinted  from 

THE  WATCHMAN 


baptist  ©rgamgatum  m 
IGtpljt  of  ipatorp 

N  1812  the  Baptists  numbered  in  the  States 
that  then  formed  the  Union,  2,417 
churches,  1,916  ministers  and  188,215 
members.  There  were  few  common 

bonds  between  them,  and  no  general  or¬ 
ganization.  The  Philadelphia  Association,  however, 
had  been  formed  in  1707,  the  Charleston  in  1751,  the 
Warren  in  1767,  and,  more  than  a  century  after  the 
Philadelphia  organization,  the  Boston  Association  was 
formed  in  1812. 

In  this  first  decade  of  the  19th  century  the  churches 
were  not  altogether  lacking  in  devotion  to  foreign  mis¬ 
sions.  The  formation  of  the  English  Baptist  Mission¬ 
ary  Society  in  Kettering,  England,  in  1792,  and  the 
work  of  Carey  in  India,  awakened  much  interest  in  this 
country.  Contributions  of  money  were  sent  to  the 
Serampore  Mission.  Rev.  John  Williams  of  New 
York,  and  Rev.  Thomas  Baldwin  of  Boston,  main¬ 
tained  a  regular  correspondence  with  Dr.  Carey  and 
his  associates.  It  was  probably  the  general  desire 
in  the  churches  that  this  correspondence  might  be  given 
to  the  public  which  led  to  the  publication  of  the  Mass. 
Baptist  Missionary  Magazine.  The  first  number  was 
issued  in  September,  1803.  In  1836  it  became  “The 
Baptist  Missionary  Magazine.”  It  is  the  oldest  Bap¬ 
tist  periodical  in  America. 

One  of  the  first  things  Rev.  Adoniram  Judson  did 
after  reaching  India  in  1812,  as  a  missionary  of  the 
American  Board,  was  to  send  two  letters  to  Boston ; 
one  to  the  American  Board  resigning  his  post  as  a 
missionary,  because  he  had  been  convinced  of  the  cor¬ 
rectness  of  Baptist  views ;  the  other  to  Rev.  Thomas 
Baldwin,  inquiring  if  the  Baptists  would  form  a  for¬ 
eign  missionary  society,  and  offering  himself  as  its  first 
missionary.  Dr.  Baldwin  immediately  called  together 
at  his  home  the  leading  brethren  within  reach.  A  so¬ 
ciety  was  at  once  organized,  which  assumed  the  sup¬ 
port  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Judson.  Nothing  has  ever  hap¬ 
pened  in  the  history  of  our  denomination  in  America 
that  has  done  so  much  to  bring  our  churches  to  a 

3 


consciousness  of  their  common  interests  and  fellowship 
as  the  letter  of  Mr.  Judson  to  Dr.  Baldwin.  In  its 
result  it  reminds  one  of  the  letter  of  John  Knox,  writ¬ 
ten  from1  Dieppe,  to  the  Scotch  lords.  Missionary  so¬ 
cieties  to  help  in  this  good  work  sprang  up  all  over  the 
country ;  in  Virginia,  in  Philadelphia,  in  New  York  and 
Savannah  and  Baltimore. 

The  far-sighted  brethren  of  the  Philadelphia  As¬ 
sociation  saw  that  for  the  largest  effectiveness,  this 
work  should  be  unified.  They  called  a  convention  of 
delegates  from  all  these  societies  at  Philadelphia.  It 
assembled  May  18,  1814,  and  it  was  the  most  notable 
gathering  of  American  Baptists  that  up  to  that  time  had 
met  on  this  Continent.  There  were  26  clergymen  and  7 
laymen  from  11  different  States.  This  convention  or- 
ganized  “The  General  Missionary  Convention  of  the 
Baptist  Denomination  in  the  United  States  of  America 
for  Foreign  Missions,”  usually  called  “The  Triennial 
Convention.” 

The  Judsons  wrere  appointed  missionaries  of  the  con¬ 
vention,  and  Luther  Rice  agent  to  visit  the  churches 
on  behalf  of  the  foreign  missionary  cause.  Through 
the  efforts  of  Mr.  Rice,  the  contributions  which  in  1814 
had  been  $1239  in  1816  were  $12,236.  Multitudes  of 
auxiliary  societies  were  organized,  and  many  of  the 
associations  made  foreign  missions  one  of  their  lead¬ 
ing  objects. 

Let  me  now  summarize  the  subsequent  history  by 
considering : 

I.  The  development  of  the  Triennial  Convention 
into  Northern  Missionary  Societies  and  the  Southern 
Convention. 

II.  The  efforts  to  determine  a  satisfactory  basis  of 
membership  in  these  bodies. 

III.  The  attempts  since  1901  to  unify  the  Northern 
Societies  and  to  bring  into  being  an  organization  cap¬ 
able  of  denominational  leadership  and  the  expression 
of  denominational  opinion. 

IV.  The  legitimate  inferences  from  this  historical 
survey. 

The  Evolution  of  the  Triennial  Convention. 

The  second  meeting  of  the  Triennial  Convention 
was  held  in  Philadelphia  in  1817.  By  that  time  Mr. 
Rice  had  spent  nearly  four  years  in  visiting  the 
churches.  He  knew  the  condition  of  the  denomination 
better  than  any  living  man.  He  had  become  convinced 
that  an  educated  ministry  was  the  indispensable  condi¬ 
tion  of  any  large  success  in  foreign  missions.  Foreign 
missionaries  must  be  educated  men,  and  the  home 
churches  must  have  educated  pastors  if  foreign  mis¬ 
sions  were  to  be  sustained. 


4 


The  convention  took  up  the  matter  aggressively,  and 
amended  its  constitution  so  as  to  engage  in  educational 
work,  stipulating  that  the  funds  for  missions  and  edu¬ 
cation  should  be  kept  entirely  separate.  Under  this 
Ivote  Columbian  college  was  established  at  Washing¬ 
ton,  and  William  Stoughton,  Alva  Woods  and  Irak 
Chase  were  nominated  as  professors. 

In  1816  the  convention  entered  the  field  of  journal¬ 
ism.  “The  Latter  Day  Luminary,”  first  a  quar¬ 
terly,  and  then  a  monthly,  was  established,  and  in  1822 
“The  Columbian  Star,”  a  weekly,  was  founded.  This 
is  now  “The  Christian  Index”  of  Georgia. 

The  convention  also  undertook  home  mission  work, 
amending  its  constitution  in  1817  to  do  so.  John  E. 
Peek  and  James  E.  Welch,  both  of  whom  had  been 
pupils  of  Dr.  Stoughton  at  Washington,  began  their 
great  work  in  the  Mississippi  valley  under  this  vote. 

Thus  up  to  1826  we  had  one  society,  having  for  its 
constituency  the  entire  country,  which  was  engaged 
in  foreign  missions,  education,  journalism  and  home 
missions. 

Still  the  meeting  of  the  Triennial  Convention  in  New 
York  in  1826  marked  the  close  of  an  epoch.  Luther 
Rice,  the  most  unselfish  of  men,  was  not  a  good  finan¬ 
cier.  He  kept  his  accounts  loosely,  and  did  not  sep¬ 
arate  his  funds.  The  committee  which  investigated 
the  whole  matter  reported  him  innocent  of  intentional 
wrong,  and  Rice  himself  gave  up  his  savings  and  his 
little  patrimony  of  $2000  to  the  convention. 

But  the  convention  was  seriously  embarrassed.  The 
reports  of  the  meeting  for  that  year  are  quite  meagre, 
but  the  yellow  pages  of  the  old  minutes  are  redolent 
with  discouragement,  and  many  began  to  question  the 
wisdom  of  doing  so  many  things  by  one  organization. 
It  is  a  significant  circumstance,  too,  that  the  convention 
at  this  meeting  felt  obliged  to  pass  the  following  vote: 

“Whereas,  fears  have  existed  to  some  extent  in  the 
Western  states  and  elsewhere,  that,  at  some  future 
day,  this  body  may  attempt  to  interfere  with  the  inde¬ 
pendence  of  the  churches. 

Resolved,  In  accordance  with  its  former  views  and 
with  well-known  and  long-established  Baptist  princi¬ 
ples,  this  convention  cannot  exercise  the  least  author¬ 
ity  over  the  government  of  the  churches.’’ 

It  looked  as  if  the  whole  enterprise  might  be  aban¬ 
doned,  but  wise  councils  prevailed.  The  brethren  from 
Massachusetts  saved  the  day.  They  reported  that  two 
months  before  the  Baptists  about  Boston  had  obtained 
a  charter  for  a  theological  seminary,  and  that  they 
hoped  to  go  on  with  the  work.  Then  they  even  pledged 
that  if  the  seat  of  the  Triennial  Convention  were 

5 


removed  to  Boston,  the  foreign  missionary  work  should 
be  supported.  The  result  of  these  overtures  on  the 
part  of  the  Massachusetts  men  was  that  the  convention 
voted  to  amend  its  constitution  so  that  its  work  was 
limited  to  its  original  function  of  foreign  missions,  and 
the  theological  department  of  Columbian  college  was 
discontinued.  Immediately  the  Massachusetts  men 
pushed  the  work  of  establishing  the  Newton  Theologi¬ 
cal  Institution  on  a  firm  basis,  and  Irah  Chase  came 
from  Washington  to  be  its  first  professor.  At  the 
same  time  the;  Triennial  Convention  established  its 
seat  in  Boston.  That  is  why  the  Missionary  Union 
today  has  its  headquarters  in  Boston  and  not  in  Phila¬ 
delphia  or  New  York. 

The  limitation  of  the  Triennial  Convention,  how¬ 
ever,  to  its  original  purpose  did  not  cripple  the  de¬ 
nominational  energy  in  the  work  from  which  the  con¬ 
vention  had  withdrawn. 

A  General  Tract  Society  had  been  organized  in 
Washington  in  1824.  At  once,  when  the  convention 
resolved  to  confine  itself  to  foreign  missions,  this  so¬ 
ciety  removed  to  Philadelphia,  and  in  1845  changed  its 
name  to  “The  American  Baptist  Publication  Society/' 

The  Massachusetts  Missionary  Society  immediately 
after  the  action  of  the  convention  in  withdrawing  from 
home  mission  work,  threw  itself  with  new  energy  into 
the  evangelization  of  the  West.  Dr.  Jonathan  Going, 
pastor  of  the  First  church,  Worcester,  Mass.,  made  an 
extended  tour  in  the  West  in  1831,  and  on  his  return 
the  Mass.  Society  adopted  a  resolution  that  the  Baptists 
of  the  United  States  ought  to  form  a  general  society 
for  mission  work  in  America,  especially  in  the  Missis¬ 
sippi  valley.  After  negotiations  with  the  New  York 
Baptist  Missionary  Convention,  a  meeting  was  caUed 
in  New*  York  April  27,  1832,  the  time  of  the  meeting 
of  the  Triennial  Convention.  As  a  result  the  Ameri¬ 
can  Baptist  Home  Mission  Society  was  organized 
with  Homan  Lincoln  of  Mass,  as  president,  and 
Jonathan  Going  as  secretary.  The  constituency  of  this 
society,  like  that  of  the  Triennial  Convention,  was  the 
entire  country. 

The1  slavery  question  became  acute  in  the  early  for¬ 
ties,  and,  as  a  result,  the  southern  Baptists  called  a 
convention  at  Augusta,  Ga.,  which  was  attended  by  3 77 
delegates,  and  the  Southern  Baptist  Convention  was 
organized  May  8,  1845. 

In  its  “Declaration,”  the  convention  says  that  its 
constitution  is  “precisely  that  of  the  original  union,  that 
with  which  throughout  his  life  Adoniram  Judson  lived, 
under  which  Ann  Judson  and  Boardman  died.  We  re¬ 
cede  from  no  single  step.  We  use  the  very  terms,  and 

6 


we  uphold  the  true  spirit  and  great  object  of  the  late 
General  Convention."  That  declaration  is  an  affecting 
evidence  of  the  unity  of  the  entire  denomination  up* 
to  1845.  The  Judsons  and  the  Boardmans  belonged  to 
the  Sou tli  as  mrlch  as  to  the  North. 

At  Augusta  the  South  withdrew  from  the  Home 
Mission  Society  as  well  as  from  the  Triennial  Conven¬ 
tion.  Indeed  it  was  the  action  taken  by  the  Home  Mis¬ 
sion  Society  the  month  before  at  Providence  that  pre¬ 
cipitated  the  calling  of  the  Augusta  convention. 

In  their  organization  the  southern  Baptists  adopted 
the  plan  of  the  General  Convention  previous  to  1826. 
They  had  one  convention,  and  the  Board  of  Home  Mis¬ 
sions  and  the  Board  of  Foreign  missions  were  simply 
committees  of  the  convention,  charged  with  these  du¬ 
ties  and  responsible  to  the  convention.  That  remains 
the  organization  of  the  southern  Baptists.  They  per¬ 
petuate  the  form  of  the  original  organization  of  Amer¬ 
ican  Baptists  for  missionary  work. 

The  Basis  of  Membership. 

Let  us  now  inquire  what  constitutes  membership  in 
our  missionary  societies?  The  fundamental  question 
is  this :  Should  the  membership  of  those  societies 
consist  of  delegates  from  churches,  without  any  refer¬ 
ence  to  whether  or  not  the  churches  are  showing 
enough  interest  in  the  society  to  contribute  to  its  sup¬ 
port,  or  should  the  membership  consist  of  those  indiv¬ 
iduals  and  the  delegates  of  those  churches  that  have 
enough  interest  in  the  society  to  help  support  it  ? 

The  way  the  Triennial  Convention  answered  this 
question  is  very  clear.  In  the  first  constitution  dele¬ 
gates  not  exceeding  two  in  number  might  be  sent  by 
“Missionary  societies  and  other  religious  bodies"  that 
contribute  at  least  $100  a  year  to  the  convention.  This 
article  was  amended  in  1820  and  in  182^.  In 
its  final  form  its  gives  one  delegate  to  “mis¬ 
sionary7  societies,  associations,  churches  or  other 
religious  bodies  of  the  Baptist  denomination'’  that  con¬ 
tribute  at  least  $100  a  year  to  the  convention,  and  “for 
every  additional  sum  of  $100  an  additional  represen¬ 
tative  and  vote  shall  be  allowed.  But  no  individual 
shall  be  entitled  to  have  more  than  one  vote.” 

The  Southern  Convention  followed  this  model  with 
some  changes.  It  provided  for  two  sorts  of  members : 
brethren  who  contribute  funds  or  Baptist  bodies  con¬ 
tributing  funds  for  the  regular  work  of  the  convention, 
an  the  basis  of  one  delegate  for  each  $250,  and  “a  rep¬ 
resentative  from  each  of  the  District  Associations  that 
co-operate  with  the  convention.”  The  notion  that 
churches,  as  such,  without  reference  to  their  contribu¬ 
tions,  send  delegates  to  the  Southern  Convention,  or 

7 


that  the  convention  is  organized  to  represent  the  whole 
body  of  the  churches  is  wholly  incorrect. 

An  examination  of  the  constitutions  of  the  Northern 
societies  yields  these  results : 

The  Publication  Society  limited  membership  to  con¬ 
tributing  individuals,  churches  and  District  Associa¬ 
tions.  The  minimum  amount  was  $100.  Successive 
changes  have  brought  the  constitution  to  the  position 
that  condition  for  Annual  Individual  Membership 
is  the  payment  of  $10  a  year;  Honorary  Life  Mem¬ 
bership,  $50  at  one  time.  One  delegate  is  allowed  to 
each  church  contributing  to  the  society  (no  amount 
named)  and  an  additional  delegate  for  each  $50,  not 
to  exceed  ten. 

The  Home  Mission  Society  had  originally  two 
classes  of  members.  ( 1 )  Individuals — Annual  Mem¬ 
bers,  those  contributing  annually  (amount  not  named)  ; 
Life  Members,  those  contributing  $30  at  one  time ;  Di¬ 
rectors  for  Life,  those  contributing  $100  at  a  time. 
(2)  Organizations — Churches,  associations,  State  con¬ 
ventions  and  missionary  societies,  contributing  (amount 
not  named),  “are  entitled  to  be  represented  by  one  or 
more  delegates.  Successive  changes  in  1846,  1886  and 
1902  brought  the  membership  article  into  substantial 
agreement  with  that  of  the  Publication  Society  (1902). 

The  Missionary  Union  did  not  reach  this  position  ex¬ 
cept  by  a  long  process  of  evolution.  The  Triennial 
Convention,  which  the  Union  perpetuates,  provided 
only  for  the  annual  membership  of  “missionary  socie¬ 
ties,  associations,  churches  and  other  religious  bodies. ” 

,  After  the  breach  between  North  and  South,  the  con¬ 
stitution  of  the  Missionary  Union  made  provision  for 
only  one  class  of  members — life  members.  The  article 
reads : 

“The  Union  shall  be  composed  of  Life  Members. 
All  the  members  of  the  Baptist  General  Convention 
who  may  be  present  at  the  adoption  of  this  Consti¬ 
tution  shall  be  members  for  life  of  this  Union.  Other 
persons  may  be  constituted  Life  Members  by  the  pay¬ 
ment  at  one  time  of  not  less  than  $100." 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Union,  1 846,  the  question  was 
raised  whether  or  not  churches  should  not  have  a  right 
to  annual  membership  in  the  Union  on  the  payment  of 
$100  a  year — a  right  they  had  had  under  the  old  Trien¬ 
nial  Constitution. 

The  question  came  up  on  the  resolution  of  Rev.  Al¬ 
fred  Bennett : 

“Resolved,  That  any  church  or  other  religious  body 
choosing  to  represent  itself  in  one  annual  meeting  only 
upon  the  payment  of  $100  shall  enjoy  for  the  time 
being  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  a  member." 

Observe  the  question  was  not  whether  a  non-contrib¬ 
uting  church  should  be  entitled  to  send  a  delegate.  The 

8 


question  was  whether  a  church  that  contributed  $100 
for  a  given  year  could  send  a  delegate  for  that  year. 

This  question  was  submitted  to  a  committee — per¬ 
haps  as  strong  a  committee  as  our  denomination  had 
ever  raised.  William  R.  Williams  was  chairman,  and 
the  other  members  were  Morgan  J.  Rhees,  Elisha  Tuck¬ 
er,  James  H.  Duncan,  Adam  Wilson,  Greenleaf  S. 
Webb,  Pharcellus  Church,  John  Booth  and  John  Ste¬ 
vens. 

This  committee  did  not  makes  it  report  for  three 
years,  and  then  it  made  a  report  that  is  a  classical  de¬ 
fence  of  the  Baptist  church  polity.  This  report  was 
undoubtedly  written  by  Dr.  William  R.  Williams,  and 
the  depth  and  sweep  of  its  thought,  the  happiness  of  its 
allusions,  and  its  reverence  for  the  Scripture  make 
it  illustrious  among  all  our  documents. 

It  is  impossible  to  summarize  this  notable  paper  in 
a  few  sentences.  It  is  substantially  an  argument  against, 
the  application  of  the  representative  system  of  govern¬ 
ment  to  Baptist  churches.  .  W e  have  no  right  it  says 
to  admit  the  dangerous  principle  of  church  representa¬ 
tion.  If  representation  does  not  necessarily  result  in 
legislation,  it  slopes  toward  it  as  the  ways  of  a  ship 
soon  to  be  launched.  A  sharp  distinction  is  drawn  be¬ 
tween  delegates  and  representatives ;  the  latter  word 
is  wholly  repudiated,  and  preference  is  given  to  the 
term,  “messengers  of  the  churches.” 

The  reason  that  our  churches  cannot  erect  a  legis¬ 
lative  body  is  that  they  have  no  legislative  power  to 
confer.  The  legislation  of  the  church  is  settled  by  the 
New  Testament.  If  on  the  one  hand  a  Baptist  church 
is  a  pure  democracy,  on  the  other  hand  it  is  an  absolute 
monarchy,  with  Christ  as  King.  The  assumption 
“that  like  any  other  democracy  the  church  should  make 
and  mend  its  own  laws,  overlooks  the  monarchical  char¬ 
acter  of  the  church,  and  the  inference,  based  on  this 
false  assumption,  that  these  independent  democracies 
can  come  together  by  their  representatives,  making  a 
joint  democratic  confederation,  with  power  to  legislate 
for  its  constituent  churches,  is  to  build  up  a  system 
which  is  neither  friendly  to  Scriptural  truth  nor  prac¬ 
tical  freedom.” 

To  the  objection  that,  if  this  is  so,  the  Baptist 
churches  are  a  rope  of  sand  for  purposes  of  effective 
co-operation,  the  report  says :  “Without  the  Spirit  of 
God  they  are ;  and  it  is  safer  for  them  that  they  should 
remain  a  rope  of  sand ;  but  when  pervaded  by  that 
divine  and  assimilating  love,  .the  sand  is  molten  into 
a  sea  of  glass.  Their  cohesion  depends  on  their 
piety.”  .  .  .  “When  the  breath  or  earthly  spirit 

goes  out  of  a  man  his  body  rots.  So  it  is  in  the  polity 

9 


of  the  Neiw  Testament  churches.  As  long  as  they 
remain  spiritual  and  prayerful,  our  churches  with 
Christ  in  their  hearts,  and  Christ  in  their  assemblies 
have  energy  and  elasticity  and  boundless  enterprise, 
and  yet  perfect  union.  But  when  piety  dies,  the  unity' 
and  power  disappear,  as  they  ought  to  do,  for  unity 
without  piety  makes  the  church  a  curse  to  the  world. 
Other  systems  hold  the  ecclesiastical  continuity  and  or¬ 
ganization  unbroken,  when  the  spirit  and  inward  life 
brave  vanished.  They  galvanize  the  corpse  of  a  Chris¬ 
tian  church  into  ghastly  and  murderous  activity,  after 
the  breath  of  the  divine  life  has  quitted  it.” 

It  is  evident  that  this  committee  did  not  so  much  fear 
that  annual  membership  would  do  harm,  but  what  it 
feared  was  that  the  adoption  of  that  plan  would  lead 
to  the  introduction  of  a  representative  system,  in  which 
churches,  as  such,  without  reference  to  their  interest 
in  the  work,  would  send  delegates  to  the  annual  meet- 
ing. 

This  report  was  sent  to  all  the  members  of  the  Union 
(1700)  ;  412  favored  amending  the  constitution,  and 
419  opposed  it,  and  the  next  year,  1849,  the  great 
majority  of  the  convention  (Philadelphia)  voted  to 
leave  the  constitution  unchanged. 

Things  remained  in  this  position  for  five  years,  but 
in  1854  the  constitution  was  amended  to  admit  dele¬ 
gates  from  contributing  churches.  The  society  evi¬ 
dently  believed  that  the  right  of  churches  as  such  to  a 
voice  in  its  work  had  been  disproved.  The  contest 
over  the  Bennett  resolution  had  not  been  over  the  reso¬ 
lution  itself,  but  over  the  principle  that  it  was  believed 
underlay  it.  In  1902  the  constitution  was  brought  into 
practical  agreement  with  those  of  the  other  societies. 

Substantially  all  the  points  that  have  been  made  dur¬ 
ing  the  last  months  in  the  Boston  Ministers’  Confer¬ 
ence  were  made  by  the  progressives  and  the  conserva¬ 
tives  in  the  years  1845-48.  Indeed,  the  brethren  of 
sixty  years  ago  showed  that  they  had  a  grasp  of  prin¬ 
ciples  and  details  quite  equal  to  that  of  their  children 
and  grandchildren.  Though  the  issue  of  a  represen¬ 
tative  system  in  the  organization  of  the  Missionary 
Union  was  not  directly  involved  in  the  Bennett  resolu¬ 
tion,  those  who  favored  it  did  not  hesitate  to  grapple 
with  that  question.  They  thought  it  would  be  wise  to 
work  toward  a  represntative  system  by  which  the 
churches  as  such,  without  reference  to  their  interest 
in  the  work  of  the  society  as  shown  by  contributions, 
should  send  delegates  to  the  annual  meeting.  They 
saw  that  a  representative  system  slopes  towrard  legis¬ 
lative  power  in  the  body  that  results  from  it ;  but  they 
were  willing  to  take  the  risk.  They  believed  that 

10 


churches  would  become  interested  in  missionary  work 
if  they  sent  delegates  to  the  annual  meeting  with  a 
voice  in  the  control  of  the  society.  They  believed  that 
such  an  organization  of  the  Union  would  minister  to 
denominational  unity  and  efficiency. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  conservatives  asserted  that  a 
church  that  was;  not  sufficiently  interested  in  the  work 
of  any  society  to  make  any  contribution  to  it,  was  not 
entitled  to  a  delegate  to  its  meeting,  or  to  a  voice  in  its 
control ;  that  since  the  amount  of  the  contribution  was 
not  large,  no  just  charge  could  be  made  that  member¬ 
ship  is  put  on  a  money  basis ;  that  those  who  care  for 
and  support  a  great  work  for  extending  the  Kingdom 
of  God  are  the  only  ones  who  should  have  a  voice  in 
it  They  pointed  out  that  when  only  30  percent  of  the 
Baptist  churches  of  the  North  contributed  to  the  Miss¬ 
ion  ary  Union — -the  number  today  is  about  50  percent — 
and  most  of  the  support  came  from  three  States,  as 
today,  the  change  proposed  was  full  of  peril  to  the 
enterprise.  And  back  of  all  lay  the  fundamental  ques¬ 
tion  :  Can  the  denomination  be  adjusted  to  or  take  on 
any  representative  system  without  a  sacrifice  of  one  of 
its  essential  ideas? 

Recent  Movements  Toward  Unification . 

III.  Thirdly,  let  us  look  for  a  moment  at  the  move¬ 
ments  of  recent  years  toward  tha  larger  organization 
of  the  denomination. 

(1)  A  committee  on  “Co-ordination,”  appointed  in 
1900,  reported  at  Springfield  the  next  year.  It  recom¬ 
mended  that  “the  best  interests  of  our  denomination 
require  that  the  annual  gatherings  of  our  three  great 
societies  should  be  'representative  and  delegated 
bodies/  having  the  same  basis  of  representation.”  The 
recommendation  that  the  “annual  gatherings  should 
be  representative  and  delegated,”  was  not  adopted,  but 
the  recommendation  of  a  uniform  requirement  for 
membership  was  adopted,  as  far  as  possible,  the  next 
year  at  St.  Paul. 

(2)  At  St.  Paul  (1902)  a  Joint  Committee  of  XV 
from  the  three  societies  was  constituted  to  consider 
“the  unrest  among  our  churches  as  to  the  lack  of 
proper  co-ordination  in  the  activities  of  our  national 
Baptist  missionary  societies.” 

This  committee  made  an  elaborate  report  at  Buffalo, 
1903.  This  report  had  two  salient  points:  (a)  It  em¬ 
phatically  declared  that  the  consolidation  of  our  three 
societies  is  neither  possible  nor  desirable.”  It  went 
on  to  say :  “Not  every  'merger*  is  beneficial  to  its  pro¬ 
moters  or  its  stockholders.  The  forced  organic  union 
of  our  three  societies  into  one  mammoth  organization 
would,  in  our  view,  be  immediately  disastrous.  The 


interests  they  represent  are  too  vast,  too  diversified,  too 
complex  to  allow  it.’’ 

(b)  This  committee  also  recommended  that  a  com¬ 
mittee  of  reference  be  appointed  “to  consist  of  nine 
persons,  to  which  shall  be  submitted  for  consideration 
and  final  decision  all  questions  of  difference  which  ex¬ 
ist  or  may  arise  among  the  several  missionary  societies, 
or  between  any  two  of  them  concerning  policies  and 
methods  of  work,  and  that  such  changes  be  made  in 
the  constitutions  and  by-laws  of  each  of  the  societies  as 
shall  secure  the  permanence  of  this  committee  of  refer¬ 
ence,  and  the  annual  appointment  of  its  members.”  This 
report  was  adopted  by  the  joint  meeting  of  the  socie¬ 
ties  with  practical  unanimity. 

3.  We  now  pass  to  a  different  movement.  At, 
St.  Louis  (1905)  those  present  at  the  Southern  Con¬ 
vention  and  at  the  anniversaries  of  the  Northern  So¬ 
cieties  met  in  one  great  meeting  and  organized  “The 
General  Convention  of  Baptists  of  North  America.” 

The  constitution  thus  defines  the  objects  of  the  so¬ 
ciety  and  the  terms  of  membership: 

The  objects  of  this  convention  shall  be  to  promote 
closer  fellowship  among  American  Baptists,  their  in¬ 
creased  efficiency,  and  spirituality  and  the  evangelistic 
spirit  in  our  churches;  to  consider  subjects  having  a 
bearing  upon  the  missionary,  educational  and  philan¬ 
thropic  enterprises  of  the  denomination  and  upon  the 
moral  and  spiritual  welfare  of  society. 

Article  IV.,  Membership.  This  convention  shall  be 
composed  of  representatives  duly  appointed  as  fol- 
ows:  Section  1.  Each  church  may  appoint  one  repre¬ 
sentative,  and  one  additional  representative  for  every 
one  hundred  members  or  fraction  thereof  above  the 
first  one  hundred.  Section  2.  Each  local  or  district 
association  may  appoint  two  representatives,  and  one 
additional  representative  for  every  ten  churches  or  frac¬ 
tion  thereof  above  the  first  ten.  Section  3.  Each  terri¬ 
torial,  provincial  and  state  convention  (or  general 
association)  may  appoint  ten  representatives  and  one 
additional  representative  for  every  ten  thousand  mem- 
mers  above  the  first  fifty  thousand. 

4.  Last  autumn  the  Chicago  Association,  in  response 
to  a  paper  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  B.  A.  Greene,  appointed  a 
committee  consisting  of  Dr.  Greene,  Mr.  J.  S.  Dicker- 
son  and  Prof.  Shailer  Mathews,  which  presented  a  pre¬ 
amble  and  resolutions : 

The  gist  of  this  paper  is  that  there  is  a  growing 
belief  that  there  should  be  more  coherence  in  our  mis¬ 
sionary  work  than  there  is,  and  to  promote  this  our 
Baptist  anniversaries  should  be  made  more  helpful  to 
denominational  unity.  This  document  therefore  urged 
the  executives  of  the  national  societies  to  call  a  joint 
meeting  of  all  the  societies,  in  connection  with  the  an¬ 
niversaries  of  1907 ;  that  provision  be  made  for  the  per¬ 
manent  organization  of  a 


12 


General  association  or  convention  representing  all 
Northern  Baptists;  that  this  general  convention  be  so 
organized  and  its  objects  so  stated  that  it  shall  voice 
to  a  large  extent  the  trend  of  denominational  sentiment 
and  policy  in  such  matters  as  touch  the  welfare  of  all 
the  churches,  leaving  to  the  societies  the  management 
of  the  great  missionary  and  publication  work  which 
they  are  now  conducting.” 

5.  We  pass  to  the  proposals  now  before  the 
Boston  Baptist  Ministers’  Conference.  The  specific 
article  that  comes  within  the  scope  of  this  discussion 
reads : 

“The  policy  thus  outlined  for  increasing  denomina¬ 
tional  effectiveness  should  culminate  in  a  Northern 
Baptist  Convention,  with  such  powers  as  may  be  dele¬ 
gated  to  it  by  duly  elected  representatives  of  the 
churches.  It  should  be  able  to  express,  after  thorough 
investigation  and  deliberation,  the  attitude  of  the  de¬ 
nomination  with  reference  to  great  moral  issues.  It 
should  administer  the  missionary  work  of  the  denomi¬ 
nation  through  executive  boards.  It  should  advise  con¬ 
cerning  the  service  in  our  churches,  the  literature  and 
music  used  in  our  Sunday  schools  and  the  development 
of  our  young  people  in  Christian  character  and  ser¬ 
vice,  and  it  should  act  for  the  churches  in  its  territory 
in  relation  to  similar  organizations  in  this  and  other 
countries. 

“To  this  end  we  approve  the  calling  of  the  proposed 
meeting  at  our  coming  May  anniversaries  to  effect  a 
permanent  Northern  Baptist  Convention  which  shall 
express  and  guide  denominational  sentiment  and  pol¬ 
icy.” 

These  proposals  are  much  more  radical  and  go  much 
further  than  the  Chicago  resolutions.  The  Chicago 
brethren  asked  for  a  convention  to  “voice  to  a  large 
extent  the  trend  of  denominational  sentiment  and  policy 
as  touching  the  welfare  of  all  the  churches.”  The  Bos¬ 
ton  brethren  ask  for  a  convention  “with  such  powers 
as  may  be  delegated  to  it  by  duly  elected  representa¬ 
tives  of  the  churches.” 

The  Chicago  brethren  declare  that  they  wish  to 
“leave  to  the  societies  the  management  of  the  great 
missionary  and  publication  work  which  they  are  now 
conducting.”  The  Boston  brethren  declare  that  they 
want  a  national  representative  body  to  “administer  the 
missionary  work  of  the  denomination  through  execu¬ 
tive  boards.” 

The  Chicago  proposal  is  that  Northern  Baptists 
have  a  convention  to  accomplish  for  themselves  what 
the  General  Convention  of  Baptists,  which  meets  at 
Jamestown  next  month,  proposes  to  do  for  the  whole 
country.  The  Boston  proposal  is  that  we  form  a  rep¬ 
resentative  delegated  body  with  power  to  express  the 
denominational  opinion  and  to  administer  the  societies 
through  executive  boards. 


13 


Some  Inferences  From  the  Situation. 

IV.  There  are  one  or  two  inferences  from  this  sur¬ 
rey  to  which  I  would  like  to  call  attention  before  I  take 
my  seat: 

1.  Baptists  are  largely  centralized  already  in  their 
missionary  work.  Leaving  out  the  women’s  societies, 
which  present  essentially  the  same  problem  in  all  the 
denominations,  Baptists  are  doing  their  general  work 
through  three  organizations,  while  Congregationalism 
have  seven.  The  Congregationalists  have  four  distinct 
societies  for  doing  the  evangelistic,  educational  and 
church  edifice  work  done  by  our  Home  Mission  society. 
The  Methodists,  while  consolidating  some  of  their 
homework,  have  just  separated  their  missionary  work 
into  two  distinct  boards. 

2.  The  movement  toward  merging  the  societies  has 
been  twice  defeated  within  a  few  years.  By  implication 
at  Springfield  in  1901  ;  positively,  definitely,  decisively 
at  Buffalo  in  1903,  when  the  report  of  the  Committee 
of  XV  was  adopted,  practically  without  dissent.  Un¬ 
less  there  has  been  a  remarkable  change  of  denomina¬ 
tional  sentiment  since  1903,  we  may  regard  that  pro¬ 
posal  as  settled  in  the  negative. 

3.  We  have  in  the  recently  organized  “General  Con¬ 
vention  of  Baptists”  a  society  admirably  adapted  to  ex¬ 
press  the  consciousness  of  the  denomination.  If,  through 
this  expression  we  hope  to  influence  general  public 
opinion,  this  society  can  speak  with  vastly  more  weight 
than  any  organization  composed  simply  of  Northern 
Baptists. 

4.  It  is  evident  that  our  present  position  has  been 
reached  by  an  evolutionary  process.  Our  development 
has  been  vital  and  not  mechanical.  Historical  causes 
and  forces  lie  behind  our  present  organizations. 

If  we  stood  back  in  1845,  wit*1  the  light  we  have 
now,  perhaps  we  should  think  that  our  southern  breth¬ 
ren  adopted  a  better  form  of  organization  tnan  our 
fathers  did  here  at  the  North.  I  am  free  to  say  that  I 
think  so.  I  wish  they  had  imitated  the  organization 
of  the  old  Triennial  Convention.  Still  we  must  re¬ 
member  that  they  confronted  an  actual  situation  with 
the  Publication  and  the  Home  Mission  Society  already 
in  existence.  But,  brethren,  whatever  you  and  I  think, 
we  cannot  blot  out  the  history  of  62  years.  The  stream 
across  which  you  could  have  leaped  in  1845,  during  62 
years  has  widened  into  a  broad  river,  across  which  a 
strong  man  can  hardly  swim. 

The  most  pertinent  question  that  can  be  asked,  when 
some  one  says  that  we  should  organize  after  the  model 
of  the  Southern  Convention  is:  Tell  us  how  to  do  it. 
Think  the  thing  through  and  present  your  plan.  It  is 

14 


not  enough  to.  show  that  a  thing  is  desirable.  If  you 
are  dealing  with  facts,  concrete  things,  actual  positions, 
historical  situations,  you  are  bound  to  show  that  your 
proposal  is  practicable. 

Take  a  single  difficulty.  I  will  not  say  anything 
about  the  difficulties  of  adjusting  titles  to  property  or 
the  perils  of  costly  litigation.  I  do  not  mention  these 
things ;  but  I  would  simply  ask  how  are  we  going  to 
put  the  Missionary  Union — a  voluntary  society,  to 
which  those  who  perpetuate  and  love  our  great  mission¬ 
ary  history  are  devotedly  attached, — which,  though 
fourth  or  fifth  among  American  societies  in  revenues, 
leads  every  misionary  society  in  the  world  in  the  num¬ 
ber  of  its  converts  in  heathen  lands,  how  are  we  going 
to  bring  this  society  into  the  fold  of  the  Northern  Bap¬ 
tist  Convention,  unless  its  members  wish  to  come  ?  And 
if  they  vote  to  take:  that  action,  no  bare  majority  vote 
will  be  effective — a  merger  on  the  basis  of  a  bare  ma¬ 
jority  vote  would  be  a  fatal  blow  to  our  whole  foreign 
missionary  work.  To  make  an  effective  merger  you 
must  do  something  more  than  convince  a  few  minis¬ 
ters’  conferences  or  associations,  whether  m  Chicago  or 
Boston.  From  the  New  Hampshire  farms,  from  the 
Illinois  prairies,  come  the  prayers  and  money  of  the 
people  who  have  sustained  these  enterprises,  and  who 
must  be  convinced  as  to  the  wisdom  of  the  proposed 
action. 

And  the  further  you  go  into  this  matter,  the  more 
thoroughly  you  will  be  convinced  that  the  reluctance  of 
Baptists  to  form  “a  representative  delegated  body”  is 
deep  and  inveterate.  The  spirit  that  found  consum¬ 
mate  expression  in  the  eloquent  report  of  Dr.  William 
R.  Williams  in  1848  is  alive  in  the  denomination. 
Thousands  of  Baptists  do  not  join  in  the  cry:  “Make 
us  a  King  like  all  the  other  nations.”  They  believe 
that  even  a  Saul  and  a  David  may  be  a  mistake. 

This  conviction  strikes  deep  roots  into  the  past.  It 
manifests  itself  unmistakably  in  our  historic  confes¬ 
sions.  It  has  been  normative  in  our  genius  and 
spirit  as  Baptists.  Here  again  we  are  dealing  with  his¬ 
torical  situation.  And  let  us  sometimes  reflect  that 
every  polity  has  its  disadvantages. 

A  Constructive  Proposal. 

Undoubtedly  there  is  a  just  demand  from  many 
quarters  for  closer  co-operation  in  all  our  de¬ 
nominational  agencies,  for  better  methods  of  put¬ 
ting  before  the  denomination  well  considered  plans, 
and  for  giving  utterance  to  denominational  opinion. 
There  is  no  equal  reason  for  believing  that  is  a  gen¬ 
eral  demand  for  a  merger  of  our  three  great  mission¬ 
ary  societies. 


15 


Have  we  not  at  hand  a  means  for  accomplishing’ 
some  of  the  ends  we  have  at  heart? 

In  1903  all  the  societies  voted  to  appoint  a  Commit¬ 
tee  of  Reference,  consisting  of  nine  persons.  Two  are 
chosen  by  each  of  the  great  societies,  one  by  the  Wo¬ 
man's  Foreign  Missionary  societies  in  mutual  agree¬ 
ment,  and  one  member  each  by  the  two  Women’s  Home 
Mission  societies.  This  committee  is  annually  ap¬ 
pointed  by  these  bodies.  Its  function  is  to  “consider 
and  decide  finally  all  questions  submitted  to  it  of  dif¬ 
ference  which  exist  or  may  arise  among  the  several 
missionary  societies,  or  between  any  two  of  them,  con¬ 
cerning  policies  and  methods  of  work.”  This  com¬ 
mittee  is  an  organic  link  between  the  societies.  It 
springs  out  of  their  common  life,  and  represents  their 
common  interests. 

My  proposal  is  that  this  committee  be  expanded  to 
18  or  27  members,  appointed  as  now,  and  that  its 
functions  be  enlarged.  I  should  like  to  see  it  charged 
with  the  duty  of  considering  all  the  denominational 
problems  to  which  reference  has  been  made  in  the 
course  of  this  discussion — the  great  moral  questions  of 
the  day ;  our  problems  of  missions,  publications,  and 
education.  In  short,  I  would  have  it  serve  as  a  de¬ 
nominational  outlook  corrfmittee,  preparing  well  con¬ 
sidered  reports  and  recommendations  to  be  presented 
annually  to  a  joint  meeting  of  all  the  societies  held 
in  connection  with  the  May  anniversaries.  I  do  not 
believe  that  we  can  do  better  than  to  utilize  an  organ¬ 
ization  we  already  have  in  this  way.  Certainly  that  joint 
convention  would  be  as  thoroughly  typical  of  the  senti¬ 
ment  and  conviction  of  the  Baptists  of  the  North  as  any 
body  that  could  be  devised,  and  that,  after  all,  is  what 
we  want.  Baptists  who  do  not  take  enough  interest  in 
the  work  of  extending  the  Kingdom  of  God  to  support 
one  of  these  societies  are  not  sufficiently  in  touch  with 
the  life  of  the  denomination  to  desire  or  to  be  entitled 
to  any  voice  in  expressing  denominational  opinion  or 
in  influencing  denominational  policy. 

I  thank  you,  brethren,  for  your  kindness  in  listening 
to  this  long  exposition.  Let  me  close  this  address  by 
quoting  a  sentence  from  the  report  of  1848,  to  which 
I  have  referred :  “The  vital  missionary  agency  is  hap¬ 
pily  beyond  our  control  and  above  our  reach.  The 
helm:  is  not  given  to  our  weak  and  mortal  hands.  The 
Pilot  who  points  the  prow,  and  watches  the  heavens  to 
guide  our  missionary  way,  is  older  than  the  stars,  and 
than  the  keel  of  the!  missionary  church  that  he  guides ; 
for  he  is  the  Ancient  of  Days,  and  his  goings  forth  have 
been  from  everlasting.” 


16 


